Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Polymath257]

The natural sciences have been brilliant at observing, recording, analysing and predicting the behaviour of natural phenomena. They have enabled us to manipulate nature, to the point where man in his hubris boasts of having subdued and conquered her. Actually, I’m being unfair; science has certainly allowed us to “lift a corner of the veil”* and to catch a glimpse of “something deeply hidden.”* These are noble goals and venerable achievements.

How much it really explains the natural world however, as opposed to describing it’s functions, is another question altogether. At some point science needs philosophy, and physics certainly needs a metaphysics, if it is to fulfil Stephen Hawking’s goal, of “nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”

Einstein expressed a similar ambition thus; “the programmatic aim of all physics is the complete description of any real situation, as it supposedly exists, irrespective of any act of observation.” Quantum contextuality, however, appears to rule this out.
“There is no way to define a reality that is independent of the way we choose to look at it.” - Chris Ferrie.


* both quotes are Einstein’s, from different contexts.

I am curious how you see the difference between 'explanation' and learning 'how it functions'. For example, we 'explain' the properties of a motor or a transformer based on the more fundamental understanding of mechanics and electricity. These are 'explained' by even more fundamental understanding of electromagnetism, particle physics, solid state physics, etc.

But, at the *most* fundamental level, there *cannot* be a deeper explanation (otherwise it wouldn't be the fundamental level). At that level, ALL you can have is 'how it functions'. All *other* explanations are based on that understanding of how the fundamental level functions.

Now, I am not claiming we have any fundamental understanding at this point. It is quite likely that our current understanding will be explained by an even deeper set of laws and a deeper understanding. But at some point, if there is a fundamental level, there can be no deeper understanding. That level would be the deepest and the only way to 'understand' it would be as it functions.

I guess it is possible there is no fundamental level: perhaps at each level there is a deeper level to explore. maybe there is an infinite regress of explanations. That is a possibility, maybe.

One difficulty I have is that I don't see metaphysics resolving any real issues. Sure, it is nice to think about and to find out where our assumptions lie and potentially how they could be wrong. But metaphysics cannot give actual answers as far as I can see. In fact, when it claims to give how things 'must be', I would immediately say we should beware and question it more thoroughly. It is usually wrong at that point (historically).

 

[Audie]

The natural sciences have been brilliant at observing, recording, analysing and predicting the behaviour of natural phenomena. They have enabled us to manipulate nature, to the point where man in his hubris boasts of having subdued and conquered her. Actually, I’m being unfair; science has certainly allowed us to “lift a corner of the veil”* and to catch a glimpse of “something deeply hidden.”* These are noble goals and venerable achievements.

How much it really explains the natural world however, as opposed to describing it’s functions, is another question altogether. At some point science needs philosophy, and physics certainly needs a metaphysics, if it is to fulfil Stephen Hawking’s goal, of “nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.”

Einstein expressed a similar ambition thus; “the programmatic aim of all physics is the complete description of any real situation, as it supposedly exists, irrespective of any act of observation.” Quantum contextuality, however, appears to rule this out.
“There is no way to define a reality that is independent of the way we choose to look at it.” - Chris Ferrie.


* both quotes are Einstein’s, from different contexts.

" Describe" and " explain" deeply overlap.

How " metaphysics" could provide any assistance
in either regard is obscure to me.

Same for philosophy, which comes up with
useless nonexense like " kalam cosmology"..

 

[Polymath257]

You seem to have a problem with reality and existence. See my previous thread 5 Planes of Existence.
Real gods can't be proven, they need evidence. Unreal gods need to be proved or at least consistently defined.

Of those, I would only say the first is 'existence'. Potentially the second, depending on your views of abstract concepts (I am not a Platonist). The others are things I would not assign the property of 'existence' to. If gods only exist in your senses of 3,4, or 5, I would simply say they don't exist. Since I disagree with your characterization of 2 (I would say it merges with 3), the whole point, for me, is whether gods exist in the sense of 1.

 

[RestlessSoul]

" Describe" and " explain" deeply overlap.

How " metaphysics" could provide any assistance
in either regard is obscure to me.

Same for philosophy, which comes up with
useless nonexense like " kalam cosmology"..

Difficult to see how you could do cosmology without a metaphysics tbh.

Of course, we know from the Copenhagenist approach, that it is possible to do physics without an ontology, but physicists of a philosophical persuasion (and there are many, including and perhaps especially those who were most scathing about philosophy) seem to have found this deeply unsatisfactory.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree except for this. I think that the findings of science have rendered the clearest view of objective reality, as it produces a clearer view of the nature of the material world.

Yeah, we agree in a sense. Where we might disagree is here. Not that the world is supernatural, because we in effect agree on that, but if all of the world is objective as with objective evidence.
I.e.: That the world is not supernatural, doesn't mean that the world is objective or even material.

 

[Polymath257]

Difficult to see how you could do cosmology without a metaphysics tbh.

View attachment 79373

Of course, we know from the Copenhagenist approach, that it is possible to do physics without an ontology, but physicists of a philosophical persuasion (and there are many, including and perhaps especially those who were most scathing about philosophy) seem to have found this deeply unsatisfactory.

I see it as the other way around. Cosmology can be done as a scientific endeavor. In fact, it is currently being done as such. Questions about space, time, and origins are being asked and answered by scientists. That clearly has relevance for metaphysics since metaphysics needs to somehow cope with the answers found (that is, it does if you want to do metaphysics at all).

My personal view is that classical metaphysics is deeply flawed and needs to be thrown out. A new metaphysics needs to be constructed based on what we have found through science. If this seems backwards, it is because the history of ideas has been forgotten: the reason we have classical metaphysics is because of the attempts to understand what ancient observations showed about the universe. The problem is that Aristotle got it wrong. That is to be expected because he didn't know a lot of what was only discovered 2000 years later.

As for quantum mechanics, I think this gives the best example of why classical metaphysics is flawed. The problem is not that there is no ontology, but rather that there is no *classical* ontology. if you want to understand the quantum world using classical notions of 'particle', 'cause', 'space' and 'time', you *will* get confused and see paradoxes everywhere. If, instead, you take QM as telling you what sort of metaphysics you need (probability based, with correlations that travel), those paradoxes vanish.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of those, I would only say the first is 'existence'. Potentially the second, depending on your views of abstract concepts (I am not a Platonist). The others are things I would not assign the property of 'existence' to. If gods only exist in your senses of 3,4, or 5, I would simply say they don't exist. Since I disagree with your characterization of 2 (I would say it merges with 3), the whole point, for me, is whether gods exist in the sense of 1.

Yes, and you as you are objective as independent of individual thought and exists in only the objective physical sense. The rest of all the cases of you in effect being subjective is you hallucinating and being delusional. You really ought to do something about that.
My advice is that you stop think individually and only state really objective physical facts.

Now if I am to be nice, then you are in effect unable to understand when you do something you can't express in objective physical terms.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I have come across people on this forum arguing that the whole of The Bible should be completely disregarded because of references to slavery, but I have never heard this argument made in respect of Plato's Republic. That example, I think, speaks directly to the title of this thread.

To be fair, no one sees Plato's Republic as the unassailable Word of God either. I am not suggesting that Biblical claims be cast off as absolutely untrue without sincere examination of evidence, but the Bible is uniquely held as something more than history and philosophy. Plato's Republic is not.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I am curious how you see the difference between 'explanation' and learning 'how it functions'. For example, we 'explain' the properties of a motor or a transformer based on the more fundamental understanding of mechanics and electricity. These are 'explained' by even more fundamental understanding of electromagnetism, particle physics, solid state physics, etc.

But, at the *most* fundamental level, there *cannot* be a deeper explanation (otherwise it wouldn't be the fundamental level). At that level, ALL you can have is 'how it functions'. All *other* explanations are based on that understanding of how the fundamental level functions.

Now, I am not claiming we have any fundamental understanding at this point. It is quite likely that our current understanding will be explained by an even deeper set of laws and a deeper understanding. But at some point, if there is a fundamental level, there can be no deeper understanding. That level would be the deepest and the only way to 'understand' it would be as it functions.

I guess it is possible there is no fundamental level: perhaps at each level there is a deeper level to explore. maybe there is an infinite regress of explanations. That is a possibility, maybe.

One difficulty I have is that I don't see metaphysics resolving any real issues. Sure, it is nice to think about and to find out where our assumptions lie and potentially how they could be wrong. But metaphysics cannot give actual answers as far as I can see. In fact, when it claims to give how things 'must be', I would immediately say we should beware and question it more thoroughly. It is usually wrong at that point (historically).

At which fundamental point, we could say that “physics is complete”; something I believe has been prematurely declared on more than one occasion in recent centuries.

I suspect the fundamental underlying reality of the material world may be empty, as the Buddha, Anthony Aguirre, Carlo Rovelli, and the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna have all observed.

Philosophy in general, metaphysics certainly included, cannot on it’s own
give definite answers about the nature of reality, that’s true. Nor can physics, if the physicist obeys the direction to “shut up and calculate”. Without an ontology, physics is just a set of equations which can be used to make predictions, remaining thereby an abstraction.

Philosophy can ask all the big questions. The natural sciences can give accurate answers. But not necessarily to the questions both want to ask. Which is why, at the frontiers of human knowledge, in the quest for truth (what is truth, asked the philosopher Pilate?), they need each other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see it as the other way around. Cosmology can be done as a scientific endeavor. In fact, it is currently being done as such. Questions about space, time, and origins are being asked and answered by scientists. That clearly has relevance for metaphysics since metaphysics needs to somehow cope with the answers found (that is, it does if you want to do metaphysics at all).

My personal view is that classical metaphysics is deeply flawed and needs to be thrown out. A new metaphysics needs to be constructed based on what we have found through science. If this seems backwards, it is because the history of ideas has been forgotten: the reason we have classical metaphysics is because of the attempts to understand what ancient observations showed about the universe. The problem is that Aristotle got it wrong. That is to be expected because he didn't know a lot of what was only discovered 2000 years later.

Yeah, then solve this so it is not a principle:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

And while you are at it, make it so that we don't need methodlogical naturalism and actual show that everything you do is objective physicalism.

In effect you are playing philsophy, you just think that you can solve something, which so far have never been solved.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

At which fundamental point, we could say that “physics is complete”; something I believe has been prematurely declared on more than one occasion in recent centuries.

I suspect the fundamental underlying reality of the material world may be empty, as the Buddha, Anthony Aguirre, Carlo Rovelli, and the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna have all observed.

Philosophy in general, metaphysics certainly included, cannot on it’s own
give definite answers about the nature of reality, that’s true. Nor can physics, if the physicist obeys the direction to “shut up and calculate”. Without an ontology, physics is just a set of equations which can be used to make predictions, remaining thereby an abstraction.

Philosophy can ask all the big questions. The natural sciences can give accurate answers. But not necessarily to the questions both want to ask. Which is why, at the frontiers of human knowledge, in the quest for truth (what is truth, asked the philosopher Pilate?), they need each other.

As I recall it, it was Charles Sanders Peirce who asked in effect the question if science has a limit and we can't explain eveything in a strong sense.

 

[Polymath257]

At which fundamental point, we could say that “physics is complete”; something I believe has been prematurely declared on more than one occasion in recent centuries.

No kidding.

I suspect the fundamental underlying reality of the material world may be empty, as the Buddha, Anthony Aguirre, Carlo Rovelli, and the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna have all observed.

I'm not sure how that would work.

Philosophy in general, metaphysics certainly included, cannot on it’s own
give definite answers about the nature of reality, that’s true. Nor can physics, if the physicist obeys the direction to “shut up and calculate”. Without an ontology, physics is just a set of equations which can be used to make predictions, remaining thereby an abstraction.

But it allows for predictions that are verified by observation. It allows the construction of new devices with novel properties and the use of those devices for our ends. That is anything but abstract. For example, a laser is NOT an abstract concept. But to understand how it functions, you need QM.

Philosophy can ask all the big questions. The natural sciences can give accurate answers. But not necessarily to the questions both want to ask. Which is why, at the frontiers of human knowledge, in the quest for truth (what is truth, asked the philosopher Pilate?), they need each other.

And it can mean that some of the questions have no answer, whether because they are ill-formed or because they have hidden assumptions that are false. As I see it, most questions about 'purpose' are ill-founded in this way. many of the 'paradoxes' of QM are because of the use of classical notions (definite paths for particles, for example) that are known by the physics to be wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, then solve this so it is not a principle:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

I see that as a good working hypothesis that can be tested in a number of ways (for example, from our observations we can model how things would look at other locations). When and if evidence appears that shows otherwise, we can modify this assumption readily.

And while you are at it, make it so that we don't need methodlogical naturalism and actual show that everything you do is objective physicalism.

Frankly, those just seem like buzz words to me. We apply the scientific method to our observations: make hypotheses that can be tested, change them when they give wrong results, keep consistent with all past observations. Then see what happens.

The definition of the notion of 'physical' is itself problematic.

In effect you are playing philsophy, you just think that you can solve something, which so far have never been solved.

I am more saying that it isn't important to solve. Philosophy can be a good thing: it shows us where our assumptions lie. it shows how they can be wrong. It trains us to think skeptically. But it rarely actually gives conclusions. To get actual conclusions requires observation and testing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it allows for predictions that are verified by observation. It allows the construction of new devices with novel properties and the use of those devices for our ends. That is anything but abstract. For example, a laser is NOT an abstract concept. But to understand how it functions, you need QM.


And it can mean that some of the questions have no answer, whether because they are ill-formed or because they have hidden assumptions that are false. As I see it, most questions about 'purpose' are ill-founded in this way. many of the 'paradoxes' of QM are because of the use of classical notions (definite paths for particles, for example) that are known by the physics to be wrong.

Yeah, if you can show me an actual physical objective property of false and not a cognitive subjective process in your brain of false, I will listen to you. But as long as you use words like false, who have no objective physical property, you are playing naive philsophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see that as a good working hypothesis that can be tested in a number of ways (for example, from our observations we can model how things would look at other locations). When and if evidence appears that shows otherwise, we can modify this assumption readily.

Frankly, those just seem like buzz words to me. We apply the scientific method to our observations: make hypotheses that can be tested, change them when they give wrong results, keep consistent with all past observations. Then see what happens.

The definition of the notion of 'physical' is itself problematic.

I am more saying that it isn't important to solve. Philosophy can be a good thing: it shows us where our assumptions lie. it shows how they can be wrong. It trains us to think skeptically. But it rarely actually gives conclusions. To get actual conclusions requires observation and testing.

I don't need your assumptions. That is not the solution, because I can use other assunptions about true and false. As long as you take for granted that your non-physical, not objective subjective cogntion magically solves the problems, because they make subjectively sense to you, you really haven't understood the problem.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I see it as the other way around. Cosmology can be done as a scientific endeavor. In fact, it is currently being done as such. Questions about space, time, and origins are being asked and answered by scientists. That clearly has relevance for metaphysics since metaphysics needs to somehow cope with the answers found (that is, it does if you want to do metaphysics at all).

My personal view is that classical metaphysics is deeply flawed and needs to be thrown out. A new metaphysics needs to be constructed based on what we have found through science. If this seems backwards, it is because the history of ideas has been forgotten: the reason we have classical metaphysics is because of the attempts to understand what ancient observations showed about the universe. The problem is that Aristotle got it wrong. That is to be expected because he didn't know a lot of what was only discovered 2000 years later.

As for quantum mechanics, I think this gives the best example of why classical metaphysics is flawed. The problem is not that there is no ontology, but rather that there is no *classical* ontology. if you want to understand the quantum world using classical notions of 'particle', 'cause', 'space' and 'time', you *will* get confused and see paradoxes everywhere. If, instead, you take QM as telling you what sort of metaphysics you need (probability based, with correlations that travel), those paradoxes vanish.

So we need to completely rethink our understanding of the material world, how it appears to us, and how we relate to it? I’m up for that.

“The history of the universe depends on the question you ask.” That’s Hawking again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So we need to completely rethink our understanding of the material world, how it appears to us, and how we relate to it? I’m up for that.

“The history of the universe depends on the question you ask.” That’s Hawking again.

Well, one way to do that is to give up on the idea that the universe is indepedent of the mind.

 

[Heyo]

Well, it is said of YHVH that “he” (anthro again) desires that all worship him

Nope, not all, only Israel with whom he "made a covenant". Old YHVH was very selective.

 

[Zwing]

…science has certainly allowed us to “lift a corner of the veil”*…

Beautiful use of metaphor.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Beautiful use of metaphor.

Yes, but in practice it has these limits for the everyday world:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

@Rival Beyound what science in broad sense can say about the Bible and that is not the same as the disblief of some atheists, science can't tell us what to do with religion one way or another.